The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has long been the guiding force in managing shared fishery resources like the Atlantic striped bass. However, while their intent to protect and rebuild stocks is laudable, their communication with the public often feels like navigating in a dense fog. The language used in their meetings, reports, and webinars is often so technical and convoluted that it risks alienating the very stakeholders whose cooperation is essential for effective management: the average angler.
The December 5 webinar exemplified this issue. While ASMFC staff likely sought to educate and inform, the language and presentation were steeped in jargon – “stock assessment updates,” “technical committee recommendations,” and “management benchmarks.” These terms, while second nature to fisheries scientists, are tough to understand for the recreational angler flipping through emails or trying to understand what this all means for their weekend fishing trips.
Anglers are not fisheries biologists. Yet, they are among the most invested in the health of fish stocks. When communication is unclear, trust erodes. Vague phrasing and overly technical explanations can feel like a smokescreen, whether intentional or not, leaving anglers to wonder if decisions are being made in a backroom rather than with their input in mind.
This communication gap discourages participation. Many anglers, charter captains, and small business owners already struggle to keep up with regulation changes, let alone decode the rationale behind them. The ASMFC’s reliance on technical terminology and bureaucratic frameworks places an unnecessary barrier between them and the people they aim to serve.
The result? Misinformation and the feeling of being left out. Without clarity, rumors about drastic closures or overly punitive measures can spread unchecked, breeding resentment and pushback from the very communities whose cooperation is essential for conservation efforts to succeed.
It doesn’t have to be this way. The ASMFC has an opportunity to reimagine how it communicates with the public. By adopting plain language principles – breaking down complex concepts into straightforward terms – they could foster greater understanding and trust. For example: Instead of “rebuilding the stock to meet the 2029 biomass target,” say “ensuring there are more striped bass by 2029.” Replace “management benchmarks” with “the goals we need to meet to keep striped bass populations healthy.” Provide clear visuals and analogies that connect the science to the angler’s day-to-day experience, such as explaining fishing mortality rates in terms of catch limits.
Equally important is transparency. Anglers need to feel their voices are heard and their concerns valued. Town hall-style meetings, with ample time for questions and answers, could complement webinars. Summaries of decisions and their impacts should be made available in easily digestible formats – infographics, bullet points, and short videos could go a long way toward bridging the gap.
By simplifying their language and making their processes more accessible, the ASMFC can build stronger partnerships with the fishing community. Striped bass management is a shared responsibility, but it starts with a shared understanding.
The future of striped bass – and many other species – depends not just on sound science but also on the collective action of anglers, conservationists, and policymakers. For that to happen, the ASMFC must step out of its policy bubble and communicate in a way that resonates with all stakeholders. If they fail to do so, they risk not only confusion but outright resistance, jeopardizing the very conservation goals they seek to achieve.
For the ASMFC, the message is clear: cut the jargon, speak plainly, and meet anglers where they are. The fish and the future of the industry depend on it.
